Bi-Partisan Committee Report On 6 Jan Capitol Violence Released

President Trump recommending the National Guard be activated and present
Gonna hafta see some proof of that.
Former Secretary of Defense Mark Meadows testified President Trump ordered 10,000 National Guard members be told to be ready to be activated and respond if needed. Meadows added the president had offered national Guard to be activated and provided security in DC prior to 6 Jan but that the offer had been rejected.




The NY Times reported the DC national Guard were activated immediately AFTER the 6 Jan violence and that all 1,100 had arrived and helped set up a perimeter around the Capitol by 6pm that night.
- This proves the National Guard had been told to be ready to be activated in advance. The violence officially began at 12:53pm - it is virtually impossible to recall 1,100 National Guard Members, have them report, assemble, travel to a DC force deployment/dispersion point, and assist in creating a perimeter in 5 hours unless they have been told in advance to be ready.



(The NYT added, "President Trump initially rebuffed and resisted requests to mobilize the National Guard, according to a person with knowledge of the events." Of course we all know how valid the left wing media's 'anonymous' sources are, as they were exposed in a vast majority of the time to be the reporters themselves, which made it easier for the NYT to continue to post false stories about the exposed bogus, debunked 'Trump-Russia collusion.)

President Trump actually suggested to numerous cities across the country to use national Guard troops to reinstate control. law, and order as Antifa and BLM looted, burned, held city blocks hostage, etc....but his suggestion was rebuffed / rejected over and over again.


THEN THERE IS THIS:

"The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it."


ACCORDING TO NPR Steven Sund, former Chief of the USCP, stated he DID request activation of the National Guard but that his request was REJECTED by 'security officials' at the House and Senate.



Sund, who was asked to step down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the USCP's failure to protect the capitol, stated it was House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving who rejected the idea of activating the national Guard because he was more concerned about the OPTICS rather than preparing / preventing / protecting:

"Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence."

Irving, who had been House Sgt-of-Arms since 2012, resigned after the 6 Jan Capitol violence.


INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, SPEAKER PELOSI DID NOT INITIALLY CALL THE EVENTS OF 6 JAN AN ATTEMPTED 'INSURRECTION'. SHE DESCRIBED IS AS "COMMITTING ACTS OF VANDALISM AND DELAYING THE CERTIICATION PROCESS":


"Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Irving will resign over the massive security breach of the United States Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday.

The California Democrat called for Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to resign after rioters supporting President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol building Wednesday, committing acts of vandalism and delaying the certification process as members of Congress were forced to evacuate the House and Senate chambers."


Fact checking that:

Notice I primarily did not mention President Trump as I talked about the National Guard but instead focused more on other news sources and people whowere there / involved?!
Notice that the person I was responding to did.

Was that you?
Doesn't matter. The sources i used pretty much rendered your attempted point moot / failed.
Lol, I'm afraid not, kid.
 
President Trump recommending the National Guard be activated and present
Gonna hafta see some proof of that.
Former Secretary of Defense Mark Meadows testified President Trump ordered 10,000 National Guard members be told to be ready to be activated and respond if needed. Meadows added the president had offered national Guard to be activated and provided security in DC prior to 6 Jan but that the offer had been rejected.




The NY Times reported the DC national Guard were activated immediately AFTER the 6 Jan violence and that all 1,100 had arrived and helped set up a perimeter around the Capitol by 6pm that night.
- This proves the National Guard had been told to be ready to be activated in advance. The violence officially began at 12:53pm - it is virtually impossible to recall 1,100 National Guard Members, have them report, assemble, travel to a DC force deployment/dispersion point, and assist in creating a perimeter in 5 hours unless they have been told in advance to be ready.



(The NYT added, "President Trump initially rebuffed and resisted requests to mobilize the National Guard, according to a person with knowledge of the events." Of course we all know how valid the left wing media's 'anonymous' sources are, as they were exposed in a vast majority of the time to be the reporters themselves, which made it easier for the NYT to continue to post false stories about the exposed bogus, debunked 'Trump-Russia collusion.)

President Trump actually suggested to numerous cities across the country to use national Guard troops to reinstate control. law, and order as Antifa and BLM looted, burned, held city blocks hostage, etc....but his suggestion was rebuffed / rejected over and over again.


THEN THERE IS THIS:

"The former chief of U.S. Capitol Police says security officials at the House and Senate rebuffed his early requests to call in the National Guard ahead of a demonstration in support of President Trump that turned into a deadly attack on Congress.

Former chief Steven Sund -- who resigned his post last week after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called for him to step down -- made the assertions in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

Sund contradicts claims made by officials after Wednesday's assault on Capitol Hill. Sund's superiors said previously that the National Guard and other additional security support could have been provided, but no one at the Capitol requested it."


ACCORDING TO NPR Steven Sund, former Chief of the USCP, stated he DID request activation of the National Guard but that his request was REJECTED by 'security officials' at the House and Senate.



Sund, who was asked to step down by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the USCP's failure to protect the capitol, stated it was House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving who rejected the idea of activating the national Guard because he was more concerned about the OPTICS rather than preparing / preventing / protecting:

"Sund told the Post that House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving was concerned with the "optics" of declaring an emergency ahead of the protests and rejected a National Guard presence."

Irving, who had been House Sgt-of-Arms since 2012, resigned after the 6 Jan Capitol violence.


INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, SPEAKER PELOSI DID NOT INITIALLY CALL THE EVENTS OF 6 JAN AN ATTEMPTED 'INSURRECTION'. SHE DESCRIBED IS AS "COMMITTING ACTS OF VANDALISM AND DELAYING THE CERTIICATION PROCESS":


"Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives Paul Irving will resign over the massive security breach of the United States Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Thursday.

The California Democrat called for Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund to resign after rioters supporting President Donald Trump stormed the United States Capitol building Wednesday, committing acts of vandalism and delaying the certification process as members of Congress were forced to evacuate the House and Senate chambers."


Fact checking that:

Notice I primarily did not mention President Trump as I talked about the National Guard but instead focused more on other news sources and people whowere there / involved?!
Notice that the person I was responding to did.

Was that you?
Doesn't matter. The sources i used pretty much rendered your attempted point moot / failed.
Lol, I'm afraid not, kid.
Your 'Nuh-uh' is duly noted. :p
 
Notice how the media always sensationalizes the Jan. 6 protest by calling it the "deadly Capitol riot"? It wasn't even a fuckin' "riot."

Just how "deadly" was it compared to an entire Summer of antifa and BLM riots, lootings, arson, and murder?
It was more than a riot. It was an insurrection.
Profile photo for Heather Fredeking


Heather Fredeking
Former Political Science Instructor (1993–2009)Updated Wed
What do you think of the argument that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection because they were defending their president and not rising up against the government?
My first thought is that Trump has a secret service detail to protect him that have pledged to protect the Constitution.
My second thought is if they were protecting Trump why didn't they stay at the White House with him.
My third thought is that when you violently storm the house of a co-equal branch of government in riot and military gear, with weapons, and attack police officers whose duty is to protect the Capitol Building, Senators, Representatives and, at the time vice-president by supporting the Constitution, you are delusional to believe you are not an insurrectionist.
Fourth, when you do $1.5 million dollars of damage to the Capitol Building and steal secured and encrypted laptops, tumble statues, and chant “Hang Mike Pence” you are an insurrectionist.
So my thought of the argument that the occurrences on Jan 6 was a group of people protecting their president is twofold: first, they need to read and study the Constitution, and, second they need to chill on the lies and BS, stop being cowards and admit what actually happened.
 
Notice how the media always sensationalizes the Jan. 6 protest by calling it the "deadly Capitol riot"? It wasn't even a fuckin' "riot."

Just how "deadly" was it compared to an entire Summer of antifa and BLM riots, lootings, arson, and murder?
It was more than a riot. It was an insurrection.
Profile photo for Heather Fredeking
Heather Fredeking
Former Political Science Instructor (1993–2009)Updated Wed
What do you think of the argument that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection because they were defending their president and not rising up against the government?
My first thought is that Trump has a secret service detail to protect him that have pledged to protect the Constitution.
My second thought is if they were protecting Trump why didn't they stay at the White House with him.
My third thought is that when you violently storm the house of a co-equal branch of government in riot and military gear, with weapons, and attack police officers whose duty is to protect the Capitol Building, Senators, Representatives and, at the time vice-president by supporting the Constitution, you are delusional to believe you are not an insurrectionist.
Fourth, when you do $1.5 million dollars of damage to the Capitol Building and steal secured and encrypted laptops, tumble statues, and chant “Hang Mike Pence” you are an insurrectionist.
So my thought of the argument that the occurrences on Jan 6 was a group of people protecting their president is twofold: first, they need to read and study the Constitution, and, second they need to chill on the lies and BS, stop being cowards and admit what actually happened.

Mehh. Mostly peaceful protest. Like the Mayor of Baltimore said, "We must give them room to destroy..."

Baltimore Mayor Gave Permission to Riot
 
Notice how the media always sensationalizes the Jan. 6 protest by calling it the "deadly Capitol riot"? It wasn't even a fuckin' "riot."

Just how "deadly" was it compared to an entire Summer of antifa and BLM riots, lootings, arson, and murder?
It was more than a riot. It was an insurrection.
Profile photo for Heather Fredeking
Heather Fredeking
Former Political Science Instructor (1993–2009)Updated Wed
What do you think of the argument that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection because they were defending their president and not rising up against the government?
My first thought is that Trump has a secret service detail to protect him that have pledged to protect the Constitution.
My second thought is if they were protecting Trump why didn't they stay at the White House with him.
My third thought is that when you violently storm the house of a co-equal branch of government in riot and military gear, with weapons, and attack police officers whose duty is to protect the Capitol Building, Senators, Representatives and, at the time vice-president by supporting the Constitution, you are delusional to believe you are not an insurrectionist.
Fourth, when you do $1.5 million dollars of damage to the Capitol Building and steal secured and encrypted laptops, tumble statues, and chant “Hang Mike Pence” you are an insurrectionist.
So my thought of the argument that the occurrences on Jan 6 was a group of people protecting their president is twofold: first, they need to read and study the Constitution, and, second they need to chill on the lies and BS, stop being cowards and admit what actually happened.

Mehh. Mostly peaceful protest. Like the Mayor of Baltimore said, "We must give them room to destroy..."

Baltimore Mayor Gave Permission to Riot
They had nobody's permission to attack our Capitol and attempt to overthrow our government.
If you think that the insurrection compares to Baltimore, think again. There is no comparison. Not even close.
 
Bobob
Notice how the media always sensationalizes the Jan. 6 protest by calling it the "deadly Capitol riot"? It wasn't even a fuckin' "riot."

Just how "deadly" was it compared to an entire Summer of antifa and BLM riots, lootings, arson, and murder?
It was more than a riot. It was an insurrection.
Profile photo for Heather Fredeking
Heather Fredeking
Former Political Science Instructor (1993–2009)Updated Wed
What do you think of the argument that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection because they were defending their president and not rising up against the government?
My first thought is that Trump has a secret service detail to protect him that have pledged to protect the Constitution.
My second thought is if they were protecting Trump why didn't they stay at the White House with him.
My third thought is that when you violently storm the house of a co-equal branch of government in riot and military gear, with weapons, and attack police officers whose duty is to protect the Capitol Building, Senators, Representatives and, at the time vice-president by supporting the Constitution, you are delusional to believe you are not an insurrectionist.
Fourth, when you do $1.5 million dollars of damage to the Capitol Building and steal secured and encrypted laptops, tumble statues, and chant “Hang Mike Pence” you are an insurrectionist.
So my thought of the argument that the occurrences on Jan 6 was a group of people protecting their president is twofold: first, they need to read and study the Constitution, and, second they need to chill on the lies and BS, stop being cowards and admit what actually happened.

Bobo, you drooling Nazi retard - you don't mind that I observe you are a drooling Nazi retard, do you Bobo?

The first thing one notices about you Nazis and the Baghdad Bob's of the Nazi press is the perversion of language. In your case due to abject ignorance and the fact that you are so poorly educated. In the case of the little Goebbels of the DNC press, due to an calculated and systematic program of demagoguery and propaganda.


in•sur•rec•tion​

(ˌɪn səˈrɛk ʃən)

n.
an act or instance of rising in arms or open rebellion against an established government or authority.

Obviously the protest at the capitol which has been perverted into your Reichstag Fire wasn't armed. Nor was it a rebellion.

It is politically advantageous for the Nazi Reich to lie - so lie you do. Had the Reichstag fire in fact been a rebellion, given the approximately one MILLION protestors present, upon the summary execution of Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police, the crowd would have slaughtered every single Capitol Police officer and occupied the capitol.

But this was nothing more than the people petitioning government for the redress of grievance - that grievance being a highly suspect election plagued by extreme irregularities and open violation of election laws in Pennsylvania and Arizona. (The latter confirmed by audit).
 
They had nobody's permission to attack our Capitol and attempt to overthrow our government.
If you think that the insurrection compares to Baltimore, think again. There is no comparison. Not even close.

Did you Nazis have permission when you did the same in 2018?

1626355609984.png

1626355645620.png
 
They had nobody's permission to attack our Capitol and attempt to overthrow our government.
If you think that the insurrection compares to Baltimore, think again. There is no comparison. Not even close.

Did you Nazis have permission when you did the same in 2018?

View attachment 513051
View attachment 513053
I wonder two things:

1. Do those stupid bitches know that "The Handmaid's Tale" was fiction? The book was usually sold in the Science Fiction section of a bookstore.

2. Do any of those guys in the bottom picture have any testicles or have they all been been castrated?
 
Notice how the media always sensationalizes the Jan. 6 protest by calling it the "deadly Capitol riot"? It wasn't even a fuckin' "riot."

Just how "deadly" was it compared to an entire Summer of antifa and BLM riots, lootings, arson, and murder?
It was more than a riot. It was an insurrection.
Profile photo for Heather Fredeking
Heather Fredeking
Former Political Science Instructor (1993–2009)Updated Wed
What do you think of the argument that Jan. 6th wasn't an insurrection because they were defending their president and not rising up against the government?
My first thought is that Trump has a secret service detail to protect him that have pledged to protect the Constitution.
My second thought is if they were protecting Trump why didn't they stay at the White House with him.
My third thought is that when you violently storm the house of a co-equal branch of government in riot and military gear, with weapons, and attack police officers whose duty is to protect the Capitol Building, Senators, Representatives and, at the time vice-president by supporting the Constitution, you are delusional to believe you are not an insurrectionist.
Fourth, when you do $1.5 million dollars of damage to the Capitol Building and steal secured and encrypted laptops, tumble statues, and chant “Hang Mike Pence” you are an insurrectionist.
So my thought of the argument that the occurrences on Jan 6 was a group of people protecting their president is twofold: first, they need to read and study the Constitution, and, second they need to chill on the lies and BS, stop being cowards and admit what actually happened.

Mehh. Mostly peaceful protest. Like the Mayor of Baltimore said, "We must give them room to destroy..."

Baltimore Mayor Gave Permission to Riot
They had nobody's permission to attack our Capitol and attempt to overthrow our government.
If you think that the insurrection compares to Baltimore, think again. There is no comparison. Not even close.
why did the cops move the barricades then?
 
"A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday released its report on the deadly Capitol riot on Jan. 6 and offered recommendations to help prevent a similar breach in the future.

The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and the Senate Rules Committee announced the investigation two days after the riot broke out. The months-long investigation included two hearings and committees reviewed thousands of documents, a press release said. Members interviewed workers from the Capitol Police and various law enforcement agencies."




BI-PARTISAN COMMITTEE’S FINDINGS:

Complete breakdown from the FBI and Defense of Homeland Security (DHS) failing to raise adequate alarm about known pending threat of violence all the way to the Capitol Police and other agencies to adequately prepare to prepare, prevent the breach into the Capitol, and to protect.

The complete failure of leadership prior to and during the violent riot: Capitol Police testified how they were left with no direction when command systems broke down.

The report recommended the Capitol Police Chief be given more authority, to provide better planning and equipment for law enforcement, and to streamline Intelligence gathering among federal agencies.


The report cited there were no functional incident commanders and US Capitol Police (USCP) leadership never took control of the radio system to communicate orders to front-line officers.

- One CP officer stated, “I was horrified that NO deputy chief or above was on the radio or helping us.’

Despite President Trump recommending the National Guard be activated and present, despite the FBI discovering social media ‘chatter’ about potential planned violence in advance, the National Guard were not activated and used to deter / prevent the violence.

- “The report blamed an “opaque” process for delaying the request for National Guard assistance and pointed out that these troops were not activated or staged appropriately to respond to the emergency.”

The committee recommended the USCP Chief should have a direct line with the National Guard.

The Committee cited the USCP Intel Bureau were not adequately staffed and all agents and analysts were not properly trained to receive and analyze intelligence information and recommended this be remedied.

The report stated that the USCP Intel Bureau place more attention on social media posts to gauge threat levels, which is how the FBI reportedly uncovered the advanced planning for violence at the Capitol n6 Jan.

The report recommended the Capitol police conduct joint training exercises with federal, state, and local government to be ready to prevent such repeat events in the future.

The Committee cited the importance to be able to mobilize additional National Guard members from neighboring jurisdictions to provide.

Finally, the Committee stated it believed the USCP, nor the FBI, US Secret Service, Metropolitan Police, or other law enforcement partners knew thousands of rioters were ‘planning an attack’ on the US Capitol.

- So, the Committee specifically mentioned the importance of monitoring social media to determine future threats, supporting earlier reports that the FBI discovered social media communication regarding 6 January planning. Perhaps the report stating they did not know THOUSANDS of rioters were going to show up means they underestimated the threat. Another option is that the Committee is stating there was no such evidence of coordination of such a massive attack on the Capitol, giving credibility to the belief by some that this was a spontaneous incited event involving a ‘mob-mentality’ that spread through the crowd.

FAKE News!
 
Are you too stupid to understand that good fiction can be predictive?
You mean like Animal Farm where they turn the farm into a failed Socialist shithole while the party bosses live well? You know, like Biden, Pelosi, Clinton etc want to do to the US?
 

Forum List

Back
Top